tv The Ingraham Angle FOX News July 17, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
right on the money. strange times we are living in. sadly, they are more corrupt than i even thought. that is all the time we have left this evening. we will always be fair and balanced. let not your heart be troubled. why didn't you go to helsinki? we flew to helsinki. >> laura: i'm not special. >> sean: what do you mean special? all you have to do is say, i want to go to helsinki and we would've brought you. >> laura: i could have got you better service than the russian translators. the point trump made yesterday, he was clearly annoyed that the mueller investigation was about the administration. it's been killing our attempt to rebuild our relationship. >> sean: bingo. when the president said to me that up to five hours ago, it was atrocious. the way he was explaining it, it let the air out of the room because, they were reading
everything that is being said about them. is he a bad actor? yes. they are a hostile regime and they've done it before. but it happened on obama's watch. >> laura: and he has just our best interests at heart. every time they say russia, i say china. hannity, fantastic reporting from helsinki. good evening from washington, i am laura ingraham, this is "the ingraham angle." we have a pretty stellar show tonight. barack obama is trying to turn president trump's summit controversy into his own electoral gain for the democrats. that is the focus tonight coming up in just a bit. plus, alexandria ocasio-cortez may not be a democratic savior but a razor line wedge in her own party. unbelievable story, we are going to explain. you will not believe who is suing the victim of that
las vegas massacre. a survivor joins us with details. first, the firestorm around president trump's meeting with vladimir putin. today, he moved to clarify his comments that cast doubt on the russian meddling in the 2016 election, and the president's support of intelligence services. >> we have never been in a worse relationship with russia than we are as of a few days ago, and i think that has gotten substantially better. i think it has the possibility of getting much better. i accept our intelligence community's conclusion that russians meddling in the 2016 that took place could be other people also. there are a lot of people out there. it should have been obvious, i thought it would be obvious, but i would like to clarify just in case it wasn't. in a key sentence in my remarks, i said the word "would" instead of "wouldn't."
the sentence should have been, "i don't see any reason why i wouldn't, or why it wouldn't be russians." president obama, along with the whole group on television, probably getting paid a lot of money by your networks, they knew about russia's attempt to interfere in the election in september, and they totally buried it. >> laura: bingo. that last point, of course, has gotten much hysterical coverage of the controversy these past two days. i've never seen anything like it. but can president trump successfully quell the rage from its critics? some on the right and the left. he is a russia expert, director of the wilson's center institute, former intel officer, along with doctor, a fox news former affairs analyst. great to have you on. i have never witnessed a
purposeful meltdown on the left, and some on the right after the summit in helsinki. the president comes out to clarify his remarks today, and it wasn't good enough. it wasn't good enough for the media, it wasn't good enough for democrats, and as we will get to in a few moments, it wasn't good enough for president obama. he spoke for the clarification. >> is it ever going to be good enough? as the president said, he could part the red sea, and it would never be good enough. it was a gaffe. he messed up. who hasn't made a gaffe on the global stage? if we forget, president obama, he bowed before the saudi king. >> laura: jfk, as our friend pointed out last night, the idea that the president of the united states is working as a secret mole for russia on the world stage in helsinki, and is
really conspiring with putin to undermine american interests as he is hitting the pipeline, kicked out 60 diplomats, as he continues sanctions, he sent lethal weapons to the ukraine, his actions against russia have been tougher than obama's across the board. and yet, all of this is lost on the trump-hating media, and also of course the democrats. i've never seen anything like this, honestly. >> laura, the problem is we have a president who can handle the mission of international security. ukraine, the baltics, syria, many issues in africa. in addition to the nuclear matter, which is extremely important. on the other hand, that should not have been the case. the debate about our u.s. politics should've been been in washington, not there. my concern now is that many of the countries with whom we are going to be partnering are looking to us as undecided. if they cannot side with russia and other powers as to how to solve this crisis, we are going
to lose. >> laura: matthew, your reaction. >> my sense is not the russians from the very beginning, obviously they have mucked around in american politics, but their goal here was primarily to weaken the united states. when you look at a president who faces almost certain opposition from congress on anything he tries to do in his view to advance the american national interest vis-a-vis russia, he is not going to be able to get it done in washington because he is going to be blocked by congress. that is mission accomplished for the russians, if their goal was to tie the hands of the president of the united states. i think this is going to backfire on russia because in the long term, the united states is the leading world power and to get that status and recognition that they need, they need to be able to cut deals with the united states. they have, in effect, hamstrung the president, but also their own ability to close the deal that they need to cut, whether it is on ukraine, syria, or nuclear. >> laura: that's a good point. i want to share with all of you
this series of hysterical reactions on the part of the usual suspects claiming that now we are at a "national security crisis" because of what happened in helsinki. >> the fact that the president and his very weak performance kowtows to putin and accepts his version of the facts, i think that is a national security risk. >> we now have a real national security emergency in this country. >> this is a national security crisis, and the president of the united states flew all the way to finland, met with vladimir putin, and basically capitulated. >> laura: what substantive issue did the president capitulate on? stopping sanctions, no longer arming the ukrainians? are we doing any of the things, bringing back the diplomats that we expelled?
>> he walked away with a few good minutes of press that he can go home and build his propaganda machine. you are absolutely right. those 60 diplomats, they are still gone. washington conflicts, still closed. we put 30-millimeter weapons right on the front lines to go against these regimes. what did he get? a few good minutes of press. >> i think the national security stress we are going to be facing in syria, the iranians are taking the borders all the way to israel. iraq tonight is falling apart with all these demonstrations. >> laura: they talked about that, the president said. they addressed iran behind closed doors.
and to claim the president the poodle of putin because it's a huge verbal misstep as if obama didn't make miss -- miss -- misstep. sthaez a national security crisis after obama tried to do a reset that never happened. >> i think the starting point for this debate is really partisan politics in the united states and the genius of russian meddling they targeted our weakest point and it puts the united states in a position where instead of driving hard bargains on, for example, syria, we have to get iran out of southern syria. russia is interested in getting
assad back in control. we can't advance the security of israel in that region we lose and a president who has his hands tied on foreign policy with the hill tout get him is a win for russia. >> laura: despite the president's verbal snafus, missteps the last 24 hours have seen dangerous hysterics over russia and here's a sample. "the washington post" blared, it's not wrong to compare trump's america to the holocaust. here is why. how about this from "politico," putin's attack on the u.s. is our pearl harbor. and then at this gem last night on msnbc. >> i would say that his performance today will live in infamy as much as the pearl harbor attack. >> laura: i mean, i don't even have words. i keep saying i don't have words for this. pearl harbor, 2,900 americans
died in pearl harbor. i'm sure many jewish americans have something to say. >> unfortunately, when our domestic politics are deeply divided, what we are going to have is a much more dangerous situation. this will end in a few months, let's say a year, the results on the ground, we will face that if we are not united. >> i completely agree. we have got to move forward with this. as long as we stay divided, they win. >> laura: are they upset about what donald trump did in helsinki? that's hard to generalize, but that's what you hear from the left. he is destroying the morale of the intel community. we screwed up a lot on the way, for decades, we have gotten things wrong. cataclysmic intel failures, but a lot of successes, too. that is just the way it is. >> sure, mistakes are going to
be made, you are going to have people who are better at their jobs than others in the intel community, just as you do in any profession. at the end of the day, most intel professionals, they move forward, they know their job, they do it right, whatever happened in the world politics, they put that behind them because they've seen it before. >> laura: the heads of the intel agencies, the things that people like brennan are saying, traitor, treasonous. when a former cia chief is going to that level of rhetoric about the current president of the united states, no wonder president trump thinks when he was running for president, this guy was working to try to prevent him from being president. we are going to treason? honestly, my old friend, george will, had a very unfortunate column today. it was called, i think, we have the full screen of it. i think we do, called "the sad embarrassing wreck of a man."
america's child president has a playdate with a kgb alumnus who surely enjoyed providing day care, blah, blah, blah. >> listen, if i had the president here, what i would tell him to do right now, he has got some really smart people advising him. have his senior national security officials work out a good deal with russia, whether it is on getting iran out of syria, whether it is a renewal of nuclear arms control, which we have to do, russia is the world's other nuclear power, call everybody's bluff by bringing that deal back to washington and saying to the senate, you can fight it were not. then it is on everyone's record, did they support, did they not support a good deal for the united states. they can't play politics. >> laura: right. that is a substantive determination. everyone can put their cards on the table. i think they are working on that. >> laura: exactly. excellent panel.
>> laura: obama to the rescue. that is the focus of tonight's "angle." before president trump could even clarify a statement helsinki, president obama pounced. speaking in johannesburg, he hits the sitting president, populism, and attempted to breathe life into his own sad legacy. >> look around. strongman politics are descending suddenly, whereby elections and some pretense of democracy are maintained, the form of it, but those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm that gives democracy meaning. >> laura: okay, the people and their will give democracy its meaning. don't you love how obama attempts to write trump off as some putin-like dictator? he tries to lend credence to the line that of course, siding with kgb and putin over all of our intelligence agents.
appointed president clarified and batted down today as he displayed in the previous segment. let's not pretend that america hasn't had a history of making convenient alliances with unsavory strongmen. we do so when necessary to achieve greater objectives for our country. i'm thinking, saddam hussein. to mention a few. obama himself abruptly cut short a big meeting with our key democratic ally, india, to attend a memorial service of the king of saudi arabia. maybe some strongmen are better than others, but when obama is involved with strongmen, it's fine. the former president also makes the mistake of assuming that trump, and the millions of people who turned out to vote for him just turned up from the ether, dropped out of the sky. trump was elected in part because many americans were fed up with the weakman leadership
of barack obama, the man who drew redlines in disappearing ink. voters in ohio, wisconsin, pennsylvania and beyond had had it with globalism, open borders, had it with trade deals that gutted our manufacturing, and gave an upper hand to china. trump voters were also tired of endless war, and they still are. that is called common sense conservative populism. but of course, many in the bipartisan establishment that trump ran against will never admit the failures of globalization, and instead, like obama, they choose to denigrate its skeptics. >> in the west, far right parties that often times are based, not just in platforms of protectionism and closed borders, but also on barely hidden racial nationalism.
>> laura: at one end out, play the race card. this is pure identity politics. that is what obama is really good at. and on the global stage, no less, he rescued democrats in the midterms. by the way, could that be interpreted as criticizing america on the global stage? in a foreign country? i think so. whipping up racial divisions is a typical democrat tactic, and when we have already seen deployed by alexandria ocasio-cortez, the new bright light of the democratic party, kamala harris, the list goes on and on. obama there in johannesburg makes it all sound better with all those pregnant pauses. then of course, he couldn't assist launching the tired old refrain against populism with a few lines that could've been written by george w. bush himself. >> the fact that countries which
rely on nationalism and xenophobia and doctrines of tribal, racial, religious superiority as their main organizing principle, the thing that holds people together, eventually those countries find themselves consumed by civil war, or external war. >> laura: i hope he is not talking about our country. i think in japan, for instance, which has a strong nationalistic streak, pride in their culture, strict immigration policy, are they on the verge of civil war? i don't think so. look, obama's turn today was designed to seize on the opening that the globalists feel they have after helsinki. but as usual, they overreach, and they have this really convenient case of amnesia regarding their own role in the rotten state of affairs with russia. these are the facts, though. obama did not reset our relationship with russia, even though he bragged about it all the way through 2012.
and, obama consistently underestimated the challenge posed by putin regime. this is the assessment from the workings institution, no fans of trump, writing, "at the end of obama's two terms, putin had elevated russia as a power on the global stage. occupied much of eastern ukraine. by successfully cramping up the degenerative aside regime, the kremlin gained a veto on any possible political solutions, and got a meaningful foothold in the broader region, fueling both anti-americanism and liberalism, and most of all, it managed to meddle almost unopposed in u.s. politics. all on obama's watch." i just read that in the makeup room earlier. the bottom line is this, the two nuclear powers in the world should have an open and frank line of communication. that is better for america's security.
and guess what? it is better for the globe. it's what liberals used to be for, more talk, less war. trump has a realistic and pragmatic view of the post-cold war era. the biggest threat is not russia. by the way, who has an economy basically the size of italy. the biggest threat to america is china. trump is the first president to make this plane and act accordingly. tough talk and tougher action, including terrorists that the globalists are all against. of course, they say precious little about china's incursions. china's cheating, china's threat. why? because they make gobs of money on china. remember back in 2014 when the chinese military hacked into the federal governments office of management? china has social security numbers and family information on 22 million current and former
government employees, including mine. this was barack obama with president xi jinping when the news broke. did obama confront xi on that hack? no, he did not. did the media it make a big deal of that? no, they did not create it on msnbc claim that obama was in a xi back pocket for not calling him out? no, they did not. but back to russia. trump said yesterday both sides deserve blame for the state of the relationship. my net said that standing next to putin, but quoting a former cia officer and policy expert, he said the relationship went wrong when the nation did not treat russia as a nation who had shaken off a soviet communism. it should've been welcomed, but
instead, it was regarded as a successor state to the ussr, inheriting its status as the principal focus of western distrust. you can debate whether that was the right thing to do, but we opted to expand nato, and failed in our attempts to turn russia into an ally, i'll be at a cagey one. that got russia's backup, and it boosted putin's popularity in his homeland. the truth is that lots of people have said what trump said yesterday, that we should have a better relationship with russia, where we can, guess who said it? clinton, george w. bush, and yes, barack obama. >> america wants a strong, peaceful, and prosperous russia. that's why i have called for a reset in relations for the united states and russia. this must be more than a fresh start between the kremlin and
the white house, it must be sustained effort among the american and russian people to identify mutual interests and expand dialogue and cooperation that can pave the way to progress. >> laura: sounds pretty good. so, why is that thought now suddenly so subversive? because we have a republican president in the white house. by the way, republican president who is backing up the conciliatory talk, building bridges with tough sanctions, as well. the democrats have the midterms ahead of them. they are coming. barack obama and the democrats clearly fear that trump might succeed where they failed. that's "the angle." joining me now for reaction is glenn greenwald, cofounder of the intercept and a deep skeptic of the intel community. glenn, the hair on fire
commentary by the former intel chief of today and yesterday is quite something. i want to play for you something that john brennan said this morning and get your reaction quickly. >> this is a big question, first of all, in terms of those who are on mr. trump's national security team, whether they can continue to serve in good conscious and individual who basically betrayed his nation. what mr. trump did yesterday was to betray the women and men of the fbi, the cia, nsa, and others. and betrayed the american public, that's why i used the term that this is nothing short of treasonous because it is a betrayal of the nation. he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and it needs to stop. mr. trump needs to understand that they are going to be consequences for him, too. >> laura: threatening the president there. your reaction. >> i have a lot of criticisms of trump, parts from obama's speech that i actually thought were good in terms of criticizing global institutions, but that rhetoric that we just heard from
the former cia director, who was also part of the cia under george bush as well, is incredibly not just unhinged, but remarkably dangerous. we are not actually at war with russia. this is the prerequisite for treason, he actually said that russia is our enemy, which is something that the president he served for eight years vehemently rejected even after all the allegations of hacking. if you look at all the nuclear weapons on the planet that can extinguish the human species, 90% of them reside in the hands of two countries, the u.s. and russia, and to create this climate where we call russia our enemy is remarkably reckless and dangerous, and it is shocking to hear. >> laura: isn't it the case that there are many on the right, the old neoconservatives, there are a lot who want to keep the cold war mentality going. russia is a big threat, we are
going to go to war, montenegro, go to war in crimea... they don't like the idea that we have a republican president reaching out to try to find some areas of common ground. they say they don't mind it, but in the end, i think they do mind it. because it upsets their applecart, their entire worldview post-cold war. >> i mean, dwight eisenhower 60 years ago when he last was in the white house, no radical, five-star general, two-term president warned that there was a permanent military faction that would benefit by having the u.s. on a permanent war footing, something the founding fathers never wanted. it was before the cold war really got underway in a hard-core manner, and obviously before the war on terror where it has grown ever stilled. there are huge factions in washington that are very invested in always having an enemy that americans are scared of. right now, what democrats and republicans, what the leaders of these are working in unison to do is convincing americans to be
sufficiently afraid of vladimir putin and russia that they are willing to essentially acquiesce to everything. interestingly, obama resisted that bipartisan pressure for eight years. he was a believer that russia was not a threat, we ought to try to cooperate with them. it's the democrats in the post-2016 era looking for an explanation of how hillary clinton lost who are trying to essentially find a foreign villain to escape accountability and blame for themselves. it's a very reckless political game that they are playing. >> laura: what's interesting, to hear that old obama from 2009 about the need to reset, his comments to romney, the cold war is over, that sounds like trump. i mean, that is really what donald trump -- he doesn't think putin is a close friend. he would like to get along better, maybe if they had a
better personal relationships they could figure things out in syria, do better stuff for denuclearization. the core of what he said there in 2009, i don't think there's much daylight between that core idea and what trump is trying to do, and he is really, really frustrated that the mueller investigation called all of his efforts into question. that spilled over into helsinki. >> yeah, there is something that is a political fact that makes people on both sides of the spectrum very uncomfortable to talk about, which is that there is a decent chunk of the populace who voted in 2008 for obama, and then voted in 2016 for donald trump. the reason is that both of them positioned themselves as outsiders to the washington establishment. they ran against the orthodoxes of both parties on the grounds that endless war and globalization were destroying the future of the american worker, the american dream, they
promised to radically overhaul what happened in washington. it is true that even though trump and obama are posited as polar opposites on a lot of issues, trade being one, but russia being another, they actually sound a lot more like then it they do different. it is true that obama repeatedly refused to do things like trump did, like sent lethal arms to ukraine, bomb forces in a thought, because obama didn't want to promote tensions with us before, because he thought it would be better for both countries to get along, which is very similar to what donald trump is saying. >> laura: you are not going to see that analysis anywhere else on television tonight. glenn greenwald, thank you so much. i have a question, why did president trump use the language he did yesterday? they have some interesting theories and all the craziness next
>> laura: why did the president to use the language he did yesterday that cast some doubt on russia's election meddling and then kind of revising that today by saying he accepts the findings of u.s. intelligence agency. joining us now, columnist at the "washington examiner" and fox news contributor, the author and filmmaker of the new film, going to be out on august 3rd, everyone has to go see it, called "the death of a nation." great to see both of you. byron, for people who somehow missed this huge uproar, let's play a part of what was said in helsinki and go right to what the president's clarification was today. let's watch. >> people came to me, dan coats came to me, some others, they said, they think it's russia. i have president putin, he just said it is not russia. i will say this, i don't see any reason why it would be. my sentence should've been, i don't see any reason why it wouldn't be russia. it sort of double negative. so, you can put that in, i think
that probably clarifies things pretty good. >> laura: everyone said he was in a great mood in air force one, he started watching the television coverage and said, what? what happened? >> first of all, the president has expressed doubt for a long time. last year, he met putin briefly at a summit in asia and he came out and did exactly the same thing. putin said, putin told me that we didn't interfere and i believe him. it was a huge uproar, the next day, trump came out in -- >> laura: let's play that so people know what you're talking about. >> i believe that he feels that he and russia did not meddle in the election. as to whether i believe it or not, i am with our agencies, especially as currently constituted with their leadership. i believe in our intel agencies. >> laura: interesting. good catch on that. >> that was the next day cleanup.
now he has done it again. he said today, i accept our intelligence community's conclusion that russia's meddling in the 2016 election took place. this is something he has since learned, he just can't say without causing a huge reaction. >> laura: is he trying to flatter putin to get what we want strategically from putin? maybe he thinks he doesn't lose anything by saying, he didn't do it. >> there are theories about this. that could be one of them. he really wants better relations with russia. two, he just doesn't believe it, or three, he has never really accepted their kind of two parts to the trump russia investigation. one part is the, what russia did part, which is a legitimate investigation into what russia actually did. but the other is the get trump part, which is the part about using the findings to try to remove donald trump from office, and he feels like if he gives even an end to these people, they are going to take it and
try to remove him from office. it is something along those lines. >> laura: you weighed in on that in examining the theory here, as we see the utter, complete case of the vapors on the part of john brennan and so forth by calling him a traitor. it's reprehensible, what they're doing. they want trump out of office. your reaction. >> on the face of it, it should not be surprising that the russians try to influence our elections. it is not surprising at all either that trump would be skeptical of intelligence agencies that seem to of been institutionally mounted against him. so, the left has a deeper explanation. the expedition is this. they are desperate for trump to ratify the premise of the mueller investigation. the mueller investigation is given a boost if the target of the investigation were to basically say, yeah, the russians are the bad guys because then it mueller can then push forward and try to close the loop by saying, you are part of that group.
i think trump's natural aversion to doing that is based upon the correct perception that the left concern here is entirely domestic politics. they don't care about russia, per se, these are people for whom election integrity have not exactly been a leading issue. but what they're looking for trump to do, to force them to do, is ultimately to ratify mueller's attempt to eject him from office. >> laura: i was reminded of the warning back in january 2017, he warned trump about taking on the intel agencies. watch. >> you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from sunday of getting back at you. even for a practical, supposedly a hard-nosed businessman, he is being really dumb to do this. >> laura: he seems to be in many ways in saying that, confirming donald trump's reason to be skeptical. i thought the intelligence agencies exist to protect us? apparently, they are just to get back at us if we question them.
he said that, not trump. >> there is another part of trump skepticism which is that he believes this is sort of a plot by obama. this has all happened during the obama administration. he feels there are certain elements of the intelligence community that are out to get him. we should say, on the left, we believe the theories are much simpler, that trump really did collude or that vladimir putin has something on him. >> laura: bill kristol, george will, all of these old republicans, some of them neoconservatives, they are enjoying this moment because they hated the fact that trump proved them all wrong and won the election. >> i think it's funny. the left has these people on a leash. they simple he have to shout "russia" and with pavlovian response, all these guys will go into a patriotic flair. here is the point. we know that obama colluded with russia when he basically told
him, when the american people are out of sight, i'm going to make a deal with putin. we know hillary colluded with russia, she took money in exchange for the iranian ideal. the one person who has not colluded with russia, as far as we know, is trump. as far as they are mounting the investigations of trump where they look the other way with the other two guys who have proven to have had russia ties, this is what makes the whole thing so comical. >> laura: how much money did the clinton foundation get? millions. no problem. >> and bill clinton got huge money. >> laura: like $500,000. no problem. there's nothing out of the ordinary about that. all right, guys, thanks so much. she is being hailed as the new face of the democratic party, but there are signs that alexandria ocasio-cortez may be ripping the party apart. oh, goody.
democratic wonder con, alexandria ocasio-cortez. they are charging that she is attacking fellow democrats from the left and wrongfully accusing a democratic leader of mounting a third-party challenge against her. congressman of new jersey said, she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. congressman calls her petty, it's a lack of maturity on her part. a liberal, congressman offered this morning. "meteors phase out. joining me now for reaction is a former ace to chuck schumer and strategist, mark. great to see both of you. this is kind of an interesting turn. five seconds ago, she was the future of the party. she was like, huge promotion, cover of magazines. now, it's look out. >> she hasn't even been elected yet. she hasn't served in office. she hasn't done anything in politics. i think there is a split here between the left and the center of the party. there is going to be a big fight
over that. you can see that fight building now. >> laura: and there was a moment at this, i don't know where this was, but she was talking about the palestinian question. let's watch. >> you use the term, the occupation of palestine? >> i think what i meant is the settlement. >> do you think you could expand on that? >> i'm not the expert on geopolitics on this issue. >> laura: god bless her, she's 28 years old. it seems like a very interesting person. she's interesting. you know, she's like a nice person. she doesn't know what the hell she's talking about. go ahead, you can react to this. >> her campaign was about local issues, they are asking her about a global politics, she's can have to get up to speed on that. if you are right, she's 28, no experience on the national stage, but i see these articles on, who is sniping at her, i
think they are a little jealous. she's a rising star, her name is everywhere, people want to get to know her, of course she's going to make a few people mad, she's an insurgent, that's what happens when there's an insurgency. people still have a little bit of hard feelings after the primary. but they are going to face the same fate. that's what happens in america. we have elections for a reason and people have to pay attention to the issues that matter to their constituents. her issues were health care, child care, and affordability. >> laura: all free. no one is going to have to pay for it, money is going to fall from the sky, it's going to be like lollipops in every bush, pick them off, look, it's all going to be perfect. i'm sorry, you're right, you're right. i agree with you on that. >> one other point, the whether or not the party is going to accept her depends on how big their majority is come january. if it's a one-vote difference, she's fine. 40 votes, she's going to have to
get along. >> it's a very tight congress, it's the moderates who are going to hold the power, because it's the moderates who are going to get across republicans, get a majority, it won't be the left. it's also not a question of stopping bills, the way that it was. it's really quite a different power dynamic. i think this is all overblown, she really doesn't command anything other than media attention, and in fact, the right hype her to say that she is the representative of the democratic party, socialist, 86% of democrats reject socialism. right now, she won an election with 25,000 votes of -- >> laura: we have a poll, 57% of democrats want candidates to be more like bernie sanders. bernie sanders and she are kind of joined at the hip on a lot of these issues. you are kind of like the old
dinosaur, not to be, too personal here, but you are like this reasonable moderate third way kind of democrat. she is on those posters looking like *april perrone. that's exciting. >> every time they wind up in the wilderness, it's the moderates who bring them down. >> laura: it's not that she makes people mad, it's that she has some warped views on economics. >> i do think that right now, we have this no holds barred, wild west hyper capitalism. what that means is profit at any cost. capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world. world.1 >> laura: chris, apparently she wants another system other than capitalism. okay, but explain how that's worked and where that has worked. tell me, where. >> i didn't hear her say she wanted something other than
capitalism, i heard her say she might want reasonable bank reform like maybe things like that which i think most americans after 2008 wanted. look, she is 28, she's 28, she has never had this kind of experience before, she's going to learn. she seems very smart, she seems to have very good political chops. i think we can both agree on that. >> laura: i think she's an attractive candidate, i think she's young, she's hungry, and she wants to make a difference. i think that's a good thing. i don't agree with her on pretty much anything, but if you're kind of a liberal, lost in williamsburg, wow, this is cool, let's hang out at the coffee shop and talk about socialism. >> i think she's an exciting candidate, she's got a lot of big ideas, i think she's going to learn in a congress that we have an incremental system of government and you have to work in that system. i think she will be good at it. >> out of the mainstream, they said very few democrats believe that socialism over capitalism.
don't kid yourself. democrats haven't moved as far left as the people running these campaigns would have you believe. >> laura: coming up tomorrow, says that democrats should vote for joe crowley. she's a threat to the party. so, an old democrat, vote for working families. they are stepping in saying, don't try this at home. >> he's another one of those guys who got out of touch with his state and was voted out of offense or lost the primary. >> laura: my home state. oh, my god. he is less fit for connecticut than the governor of -- malloy, whatever his name was. >> now he is, he's been home now. >> that's not happening. >> laura: all right, guys. by the way, the victims of last year's las vegas massacre are
massacre are now facing a new injustice they probably never thought possible. they are actually being sued. the lawsuit is being brought by, of all places, the mgm resort which owns the mandalay bay hotel, where he committed the mass shooting. joining us to explain how this is even possible is a survivor of the las vegas shooting and an attorney representing a number of the victims of the massacre. brian, this is so wild on so many levels. we've already gone through, frankly the lack of security, lack of responsiveness, officers standing out in the hallway, they should've gone in when he was up to his evil act. but now they are being sued? what is the legal theory? what is the legal theory? >> thank you for having me back. how deep in the swamp does mgm want to jump? how far in the gutter to they how far in the gutter to they1 want to go, and how low do they want to kick victims like myself and other survivors?
what they are trying to do is use what's called the safety act, there was a law put in place by our fellow government, 2002, the basically said companies hire out a security company that's rubber-stamped by the department of homeland security that basically -- mgm is saying they are immune from any liability that results if there is a terroristic act. the problem with that theory, number one, remember our old friend sheriff lombardo? he's come out and proclaimed a million times on tv that this was not a terroristic act. that is their first hurdle. they said it wasn't terrorism. the second hurdle that nobody's talking about, even if a judge somehow says this was terrorism, and this safety act applies, they have to prove that the security system they had in place was effective, and had social utility. gee whiz, guess what, 58 people died and hundreds were injured, so it wasn't real effective. >> laura: i still don't think
we know very much about this attack. i mean, this mass killing. we've seen videos released sporadically, why did it take so long to release the hallway video? let hallway video that came out a couple weeks ago, that just is wild to me. i'm not a conspiracy theorist, but if i were, that would make me think, that's odd. why didn't we see the check-in video earlier? why didn't we see anyone coming and going into his room earlier? what took so long? >> it's pretty simple, they don't want you to know. they don't want your viewers to know. they don't want the world to know how hapless their security wasn't leading up to that shooting. what did they do? instead of spending money on shoring up their security and making sure this doesn't happen again, they spend millions of dollars hiring out thousand dollars and our lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits to get out of the case on a legal basis so
that the whole community and a set of jurors will never hear the evidence that we all want to hear to make positive change. >> laura: the judge, will he allow discovery on whether or not this was a terrorist act? he has to, right? >> that's a great question. here is my theory. i think mgm filed the wrong kind of lawsuit. they should not have filed -- they filed what is called a declaratory relief action. >> laura: you just lost the entire audience. i'm just kidding. we are out of time, but i want to have you back on radio. unbelievable story. we will be right back
tweets, not the means ones but sometimes they're really funny. shannon bringing up next with a fantastic show examining all histrionics of the last 48 hours, take it away. shannon: we begin with the fox news alert, clarification heard round the world, donald trump saying he misspoken helsinki and he has full faith in the intelligence community. in minutes you will hear from jerry boykin who will tell us what he is hearing from the intel community today and donald trump's supreme court nominee on the charm offensive meeting with sen. ted cruz and others on the hill today gearing up for what could be the biggest partisan confirmation battle of the year. judge cavanagh's former clerk joins us live. and reaction to the democrats tries to abolish ice. how does america feel about throwing out the agency protecting our borders.